Jellyfish actually use on of the most efficient means of traveling known in the animal kingdom. They create vortexes between contraction and expulsion, when the vortex is filled they are pushed forward. A completely deliberate and controlled method of traveling. One of the most efficient means of traveling in the animal kingdom.
Without seeing the studies, I have felt this way for years and have attempted to tell my community and audience of it. I'm happy to be able to share this now with them. Beautiful talk Daniel !!!
@@StarKillerSith1 I'm not sure what I wanted to write back then, but rewatching the video I think it's the following: Generally movement is too fast, to receive and process sensory input, so you just don't use it in moves you already know. Sensory input is mostly used in retrospect. You want to move in a particular way, the CNS predicts what it needs to tell the body to replicate what you want, then the body moves and you observe the result. If the result is deviated from your will, then the sensory stuff is taken into consideration and the CNS finetunes the commands to match what you want better. If you practice a movement a lot of time, you get proficient in it and can execute it increasingly fast, accurate and precise. The CNS commands work this way: The goal isn't to flex the muscle, but to move the joints and that is translated to how much each muscle have to flex and when. The distance of the muscles to the CNS is different, thus the time for the signals to get there is different. The CNS have to be aware of the delay and send the signals sooner to the muscles further and later for the muscles nearer, to produce synchronous movement. Punches are a good example. A perfect punch is executed, when every muscle flexes at the right time and there is a quasi-solid structure assembled for a moment exactly when the punch lands. If that is fulfilled the the puncher will hit like a truck. It's more technique than force, because it relies on supporting the punch, not throwing it. The person told me this refers to it as "seismic punch", because when he hits the sandbag this way, there's can be heard a specific bang sound. There is nowhere for the force to "leak" because of the perfect support and it all goes into the bag from the floor. If the punch lacks synchronicity, the force will leak and the puncher need much more brute strength to achieve the same result in punching force. Also if the spine, shoulders etc aren't held in a particular way, then the structure isn't supported by the solid bone structure, but the flexible tendons and muscles to keep the integrity, thus force will leak. All the bones and joints needs to be aligned to an arch, that connects the opponent to the floor through a punch, thus the performer will "hit the opponent with the floor". For this, the CNS needs to send the right kind of impulses, to the right muscles, at the right time. To do this, there is a movement program that the CNS developed before by practice and now, just executes it. There are movement programs for everything. There are fundamental programs that control singular joints, the next layer is bi-jount movements and so on. If your fundamental programs are screwed, you are at a disadvantage, you will be weaker, less flexible and prone to injury. The more a kid moves the more chance there is to develop good programs. Also, programs are somewhat inherited genetically and you also mimics your parents, so if they move well or badly, you will copy it. Talent is a big factor, some can learn movements and develop good programs fast, other struggle and have to consciously counter their lack of talent, while never reaching the level of the talented one.
@@emiki6 great, thanx! I was wondering: what about music? I mean how do we learn to appreciate Mozart or Beethoven? Raeding or the nature is easier, isn't it?
I suspect a lot of the difficulty in teaching robots to move in a humanlike manner is that humans base our decisions on probability, and are constantly reevaluating, whereas machines think in terms of absolute certainty, which is a concept which doesn't apply to the real world. Ironic, then, that humans have such a tendency to seek out certainty, and in doing so, become more robot-like.
I'm so glad UA-cam put a banner under this video to provide additional context on Climate change for why we have brains. Clearly, it's not to correct wrong-think by applying banners to the bottom of UA-cam videos.
I find his assertions VERY intriguing, but he hasn't completely sold me on the idea that the brain exists ONLY to control movement. Certainly this might be true in lower life forms. Aso one could argue that absolutely anything that is perceived as changing is movement. Typing and writing and talking all involve movement but their GOAL is to express thought.
Ironic that brains exist to facilitate the movements of the body, while more than one philosopher have dreamed of the possibility of existing as a brain independent of the body...
simply genius. Great experimental design, and incredible ability to see the big picture...people always forget to bring it down to the basics! Movement!
9:24 This is the magic of sports where for the most part things happen so quickly that decision-making has to be made almost unconsciously, meaning it's mainly an intuitive process rather than a conscious one. And as neuroscience already suggests, the unconscious portion of the mind is orders of magnitude faster and more capable than the conscious mind which theoretically equates no more than a 56kbps dial-up modem.
As a young man, Richard Feynman would pace when trying to solve a radio repair puzzle. Albert Einstein is reported to have said he did his thinking while in motion.
good talk. interestingly, the start uses the exact same argument, almost in the same way, that Rodolfo Llinas made in "I of the Vortex" (2002) if anyone is curious about more sources
Weird, I was just thinking and writing about this a few days ago, wondering if good robotic movement systems were already using the method (i mean it just seems so obvious): To use a constantly running internal simulation to control the speed of movements, based on how accurately your internal simulation seems to be predicting the real-world movement results (ie: giving robots a self-limiting sense of "confidence"). I'm glad to see it's already got a name: "Bayesian Inference". Yay learning!
The cup girl was very impressive, but that feat was from trained muscle memory, far more than from conscious thought. It took disciplined cognition to create the pattern, yes, but it was trial&error through repetition, with on-site storage, that allowed that intense speed. To transfer this to robotics, the motion sensors must have their own abilities for learned pattern recall. The brain at that point commands "perform series X" and the body does it. Unless, like he said, there is added input.
Certainly animals evolved a nervous system INITIALLY to guide movement. A good example is in the evolution of bilateral symmetry and then the positioning of optical sensory apparatus at one end. This is observable in this basic, fundamental form in planaria. Planaria are super simple animals what cannot really "see" much but can sense light and dark and movement. The positioning of the sensory apparati at one side only allows a creature to have a sense of direction, and move TOWARD or AWAY.
The predictive element of the movement process lends credence to the notion of ‘visualizing’ a movement for success. See the free throw going in before shooting the ball…
We think with our minds; we move with our brains. You are not a gray slug wrapped in a wonderful hasmat suit. You are a mind that is connected to a brain that is connect to a body.
The fact that the brain is situated at the front of the animal and near sensory organs associated with feeding is telling really. For that reason alone it could be argued that brains pertain to finding food by sense and locomotion. Locomotion more importantly as sensing food would be torture if you couldn't move to reach it.
@iDokoV most people can tickle themselves, but as he said in thsi vid "not as good as someone else" he never said nobody can tickle themselves, he was very clear.
@funincluded oh, you're right! That's a form of communication that requires no muscles to either send nor receive. And supposedly trees do communicate to eachother via smells, ie: Signalling distress. When one tree is under attack from insects, other trees nearby will change their sap chemistry to be less palatable to the insects.
Nice talk - at times a bit simplistic in it's approach but I'm sure that's necessary to make it understandable for a wider audience. Truth be told the Bayesian statistics part didn't surprise me the least, but it's nice to have the suspicion confirmed.
@syntheticsteve I agree with your statement that the human form is a machine. I disagree with the premise that a human being is his or her form. Consciousness is first cause as Planck and so many other scientists have stated. "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck
@amjams I think you might have missed the point of the talk. He's basically asking "Why don't plants have brains?" and answering, "Because they don't move." If an individual member of some random species loses a limb and somehow manages to kill and eat more critters in its lifetime than most other individuals, that has no bearing on what the limb's original evolutionary purpose was or the value of that purpose to all the species who have limbs.
Absolutely agree, robots are programmed before hand what to do whereas humans make predictions based on past experiences and probability as you mentioned. There's an interesting video on Ted from Jeff Hawkins
@theoriginalanomaly The point is... it isn't some simple algorithm that will take computers to the next level. It would be incredibly complex and brilliant code written to evaluate positions with complex strategical evaluations. This mixed with the brute force method. But just think how complicated it would be to create a strategical evaluation that can compare with piece evaluation and still be able to break strategical rules if/when the position requires it.
excellent ! Staring brick by brick vertically upwards from visual thinking to meta cognition of abstract conceptual thinking. I would wait to hear from you when you reach that level using your scientific methodology.
@gaiagale He does focus pretty exclusively on the movement bit, I agree. And I too believe that the human brain has evolved beyond the point where every function can neatly be related to movement. Perhaps we can draw two main lessons from this though: A: The brain survives and is indeed favoured in evolution, primarily because it allows complex movement. B: Keeping [A] in mind is probably smart when studying/contemplating anything related to "brained" animals, humans included.
Yup movement is ontological primary, physics shows it. All objects are primary made from motion. Reproduction is not an end though, it is a means of survival. The end is survival.
I don't think that it's only his accent. I mean, imagine yourself trying to give a talk with such complexity in less than 20 minutes (which seems like the amount of time they have given him), you would surely hurry speaking. But Idk, it seems like some people who are familiar with his accent haven't found difficulty understanding him, so...
@amjams To each his own. I think even Wolpert would agree that once the simplest brains developed for movement, evolutionary pressures favored other features as well, like abstract thought in humans. It's just all built on a common foundation.
@gaiagale - Perhaps I interpreted your question wrong. I see now that you were simply implicating D.W.'s concept as not including two potent aspects of brain functioning: thinking and feeling. "beings" vs "doings": In fact, even at apparent rest, the subconscious is constantly panning and "doing" things to keep us alive: breathing, blood circulation, food digestion, etc., etc., etc. "protect them first": Emotions help us evaluate past actions and assess priorities for future actions.
@gaiagale Ah, I might've rushed that one a bit. These comments don't allow much elaboration. What I meant is that when one tries to achieve some higher understanding of the behavior of any animal with a brain, [A] may be one of the premises one should remember. I was primarily thinking of epistemology and psychology when I wrote my reply (I'm studying philosophy of science these days), but I think it may well apply in any area concerning the behavior of beings who have a brain to speak of.
This is profoundly interesting psychologically and suggests that below the subconscious there is a need go move, the body's basic intelligence? The appeal of sports at all levels, perhaps.
@Llewellyn124 I know what you mean. But I also know that it isn't that simple either. Most games or positions can only be won with 1 set series of moves. For example sacrifice of the queen may be the start of a series of 12 moves. And only 1 variation of the 12 moves would win... whereas the other 12^30 moves would lead most likely lead to high percentage of losses. Therefore a program to follow the highest percentage of win would avoid winning.
@gaiagale what does a child have to do? absorb social rules to abide by them in the future.. eat.. learn how to respond.. learn the constancies of the physical world, and in turn that it can act on it.. it learns properties of materials and the properties of the self.. it's all movement-based. really. it makes beautiful sense.
@hilariofreire roughly the same classical musicians would think about deathmetal, acid trance or dubstep? Loads of noise, but once you understand the patterns and purpose of the noise it can become beautiful.
@2bsirius Because the amount of permutations per move for Chess is far less than Go. Most computers, such as Deep Blue, will compute many moves in advance or to the end of the game to determine the 'best' move. There are too many possibilities for in each move in Go to do this.
@gaiagale "The real reason for brains" is more than just "control movement" I would suggest you think a little about how much movement is involved in everything we do. Even the highest reaches of spiritual or philosophical thought, if it influences the way we respond to the world in any manner, involves modifying our movements. I really cant think of any use of the brain that wouldn't alter our movement to some, although maybe small, degree.
They do have a nervous system though, such movement wouldn't really work without some inter-connectivity, It might work using other means of synchronization, but as said, jellyfish do have a nervous system, they are actually quite aware of their sorroundings with some species going as far as having having rudimentary eyes
in response to his last point about vision, how then would he explain bats? they lack vision though are very capable-in fact extremely precise-of movement.
@gaiagale I hadn't heard of it before, but I just finished watching it. Thanks a lot for the heads up, it was very enjoyable, in much the same way as I enjoyed 'Waking Life'. At this point my thoughts are too chaotic and disorganized for me to partake in any serious discussion of it. I'll watch it again in a couple of weeks, and then I might have some thoughts for you.
He speaks like his theory about the brain is 100% true meanwhile neurosciences is just at the beginning of the exploration of the brain and we might not really know what are the real functions and purpose of the brain. Indeed, brain could have been made to think and meditate about the creation and therefor remember the creator.
@2bsirius Chess is a simpler game to predict than GO!. There are, at most, 100 or so possible moves in chess at any one time. Very large numbers of those moves can be ignored because of immediate consequence, so most of the time, chess is reduced to a few dozen moves or less per turn. GO! on the other hand doesn't lend itself to such easy determination. It has as many moves, but none are easily ignored. The consequences of moves aren't as clear cut as in chess.
@3:00 - Regarding the dexterity of optimizing robotic movement, things are much more advanced than depicted at this point in Wolpert's talk. Please see the following video to learn more: /watch?v=ag-txw4KUgo
@ennot you got it all wrong, the thing about movement is that it demands PREDICTION / ANALYTICAL skills, which certainly Bill Gates and other thinkers have plenty of.
@mattmoore111 this is a hypothesis about the relationship between movement and the human brain. It has nothing to do with what you asked. It's like asking how germ theory explains planetary motion. It doesn't, it's unrelated.
@Waranoa Note that Mr. Wolpert does not mention consciousness except in passing and that he is a materialist. Science has killed materialism. “all matter exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ Planck "We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart."-Blaise Pascal (1723-1662)
@2bsirius the previous dude is right. but computers still could outpay even the best players if they had enough computing power which would be about (power of a modern multi-tower server)^6
Jellyfish actually use on of the most efficient means of traveling known in the animal kingdom. They create vortexes between contraction and expulsion, when the vortex is filled they are pushed forward. A completely deliberate and controlled method of traveling. One of the most efficient means of traveling in the animal kingdom.
Without seeing the studies, I have felt this way for years and have attempted to tell my community and audience of it. I'm happy to be able to share this now with them. Beautiful talk Daniel !!!
If you reply I will tell you a more profound model.
@@emiki6 Tell me
@@StarKillerSith1 I'm not sure what I wanted to write back then, but rewatching the video I think it's the following:
Generally movement is too fast, to receive and process sensory input, so you just don't use it in moves you already know. Sensory input is mostly used in retrospect. You want to move in a particular way, the CNS predicts what it needs to tell the body to replicate what you want, then the body moves and you observe the result. If the result is deviated from your will, then the sensory stuff is taken into consideration and the CNS finetunes the commands to match what you want better. If you practice a movement a lot of time, you get proficient in it and can execute it increasingly fast, accurate and precise.
The CNS commands work this way: The goal isn't to flex the muscle, but to move the joints and that is translated to how much each muscle have to flex and when. The distance of the muscles to the CNS is different, thus the time for the signals to get there is different. The CNS have to be aware of the delay and send the signals sooner to the muscles further and later for the muscles nearer, to produce synchronous movement.
Punches are a good example. A perfect punch is executed, when every muscle flexes at the right time and there is a quasi-solid structure assembled for a moment exactly when the punch lands. If that is fulfilled the the puncher will hit like a truck. It's more technique than force, because it relies on supporting the punch, not throwing it. The person told me this refers to it as "seismic punch", because when he hits the sandbag this way, there's can be heard a specific bang sound. There is nowhere for the force to "leak" because of the perfect support and it all goes into the bag from the floor. If the punch lacks synchronicity, the force will leak and the puncher need much more brute strength to achieve the same result in punching force. Also if the spine, shoulders etc aren't held in a particular way, then the structure isn't supported by the solid bone structure, but the flexible tendons and muscles to keep the integrity, thus force will leak.
All the bones and joints needs to be aligned to an arch, that connects the opponent to the floor through a punch, thus the performer will "hit the opponent with the floor". For this, the CNS needs to send the right kind of impulses, to the right muscles, at the right time. To do this, there is a movement program that the CNS developed before by practice and now, just executes it.
There are movement programs for everything. There are fundamental programs that control singular joints, the next layer is bi-jount movements and so on. If your fundamental programs are screwed, you are at a disadvantage, you will be weaker, less flexible and prone to injury. The more a kid moves the more chance there is to develop good programs. Also, programs are somewhat inherited genetically and you also mimics your parents, so if they move well or badly, you will copy it. Talent is a big factor, some can learn movements and develop good programs fast, other struggle and have to consciously counter their lack of talent, while never reaching the level of the talented one.
@@emiki6 great, thanx! I was wondering: what about music? I mean how do we learn to appreciate Mozart or Beethoven? Raeding or the nature is easier, isn't it?
@@istvanheimer1845 írhatom magyarul amit gondolok? :D
I suspect a lot of the difficulty in teaching robots to move in a humanlike manner is that humans base our decisions on probability, and are constantly reevaluating, whereas machines think in terms of absolute certainty, which is a concept which doesn't apply to the real world. Ironic, then, that humans have such a tendency to seek out certainty, and in doing so, become more robot-like.
Shawn Ravenfire your statement is highly profound and important in the development of machine learning.
10 years later and Ai is based on probability
I didn't struggle to understand him. His speech is pretty clear.
I'm so glad UA-cam put a banner under this video to provide additional context on Climate change for why we have brains. Clearly, it's not to correct wrong-think by applying banners to the bottom of UA-cam videos.
I find his assertions VERY intriguing, but he hasn't completely sold me on the idea that the brain exists ONLY to control movement. Certainly this might be true in lower life forms. Aso one could argue that absolutely anything that is perceived as changing is movement. Typing and writing and talking all involve movement but their GOAL is to express thought.
Ironic that brains exist to facilitate the movements of the body, while more than one philosopher have dreamed of the possibility of existing as a brain independent of the body...
simply genius. Great experimental design, and incredible ability to see the big picture...people always forget to bring it down to the basics! Movement!
I learned so much from this Ted Talk. Thank you very much the creators that made this happen!
The first thing that came to mind when I saw this was Ido Portal lol.
found this because of ido! an incredible human!
9:24 This is the magic of sports where for the most part things happen so quickly that decision-making has to be made almost unconsciously, meaning it's mainly an intuitive process rather than a conscious one. And as neuroscience already suggests, the unconscious portion of the mind is orders of magnitude faster and more capable than the conscious mind which theoretically equates no more than a 56kbps dial-up modem.
I've attended a talk of him a couple of days ago and he is still using the first couple of slides that he used in this video from over 6 years ago ^.^
what about message? Message also the same?
This video had actually been uploaded seven years before you wrote this comment, so....
wow...one of the best TED I have watched
Este video cambió para siempre la relación que tengo con el movimiento y también con mi profesión como kinesiólogo 🙏🏽
As a young man, Richard Feynman would pace when trying to solve a radio repair puzzle. Albert Einstein is reported to have said he did his thinking while in motion.
I generally make 1.5 movements a day. I definitely do these movements to avoid the negative noisy consequences that come about if I hold it in.
good talk. interestingly, the start uses the exact same argument, almost in the same way, that Rodolfo Llinas made in "I of the Vortex" (2002) if anyone is curious about more sources
This is great the green and red combine nicely to give yellow
@IIiTzVicII : Amazing that so many of us see the world through our television, and not much beyond that.
interesting, I'm trying to think about how to minimise noise in my movements when playing guitar/piano/drums now.
Weird, I was just thinking and writing about this a few days ago, wondering if good robotic movement systems were already using the method (i mean it just seems so obvious): To use a constantly running internal simulation to control the speed of movements, based on how accurately your internal simulation seems to be predicting the real-world movement results (ie: giving robots a self-limiting sense of "confidence").
I'm glad to see it's already got a name: "Bayesian Inference".
Yay learning!
The cup girl was very impressive, but that feat was from trained muscle memory, far more than from conscious thought. It took disciplined cognition to create the pattern, yes, but it was trial&error through repetition, with on-site storage, that allowed that intense speed.
To transfer this to robotics, the motion sensors must have their own abilities for learned pattern recall. The brain at that point commands "perform series X" and the body does it. Unless, like he said, there is added input.
got to be one of the most interesting talks in a while.... that and the Norden Bombsight
2:18 Guy in 2nd row, blue shirt, is a tenured professor.
no, he is definitely pre-tenure (no gray hair) and reassessing his life choices .
Guy in black in front of him is tenured and obvs feels called out
Certainly animals evolved a nervous system INITIALLY to guide movement. A good example is in the evolution of bilateral symmetry and then the positioning of optical sensory apparatus at one end. This is observable in this basic, fundamental form in planaria. Planaria are super simple animals what cannot really "see" much but can sense light and dark and movement. The positioning of the sensory apparati at one side only allows a creature to have a sense of direction, and move TOWARD or AWAY.
@amjams I don't think he was suggesting that the brain was only useful for movement. Just that movement was its primary purpose.
The predictive element of the movement process lends credence to the notion of ‘visualizing’ a movement for success. See the free throw going in before shooting the ball…
We think with our minds; we move with our brains. You are not a gray slug wrapped in a wonderful hasmat suit. You are a mind that is connected to a brain that is connect to a body.
The fact that the brain is situated at the front of the animal and near sensory organs associated with feeding is telling really. For that reason alone it could be argued that brains pertain to finding food by sense and locomotion. Locomotion more importantly as sensing food would be torture if you couldn't move to reach it.
@iDokoV most people can tickle themselves, but as he said in thsi vid "not as good as someone else" he never said nobody can tickle themselves, he was very clear.
@funincluded oh, you're right! That's a form of communication that requires no muscles to either send nor receive.
And supposedly trees do communicate to eachother via smells, ie: Signalling distress. When one tree is under attack from insects, other trees nearby will change their sap chemistry to be less palatable to the insects.
Nice talk - at times a bit simplistic in it's approach but I'm sure that's necessary to make it understandable for a wider audience. Truth be told the Bayesian statistics part didn't surprise me the least, but it's nice to have the suspicion confirmed.
Listening to him made my throat weary.
@syntheticsteve I agree with your statement that the human form is a machine. I disagree with the premise that a human being is his or her form. Consciousness is first cause as Planck and so many other scientists have stated.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck
Good martial arts/self-defense lesson: 17:06-18:20
He also have a very sharp sense of humor.
@amjams I think you might have missed the point of the talk. He's basically asking "Why don't plants have brains?" and answering, "Because they don't move." If an individual member of some random species loses a limb and somehow manages to kill and eat more critters in its lifetime than most other individuals, that has no bearing on what the limb's original evolutionary purpose was or the value of that purpose to all the species who have limbs.
Absolutely agree, robots are programmed before hand what to do whereas humans make predictions based on past experiences and probability as you mentioned. There's an interesting video on Ted from Jeff Hawkins
@theoriginalanomaly The point is... it isn't some simple algorithm that will take computers to the next level. It would be incredibly complex and brilliant code written to evaluate positions with complex strategical evaluations. This mixed with the brute force method. But just think how complicated it would be to create a strategical evaluation that can compare with piece evaluation and still be able to break strategical rules if/when the position requires it.
Indeed one might argue that the placement of the concentration of sensory apparatuses is even more significant than the brain itself.
Nerdgasm at 2:16 lol
I love these TED talks ^_^
^ unrelated comments
excellent ! Staring brick by brick vertically upwards from visual thinking to meta cognition of abstract conceptual thinking. I would wait to hear from you when you reach that level using your scientific methodology.
This.
@gaiagale He does focus pretty exclusively on the movement bit, I agree. And I too believe that the human brain has evolved beyond the point where every function can neatly be related to movement. Perhaps we can draw two main lessons from this though:
A: The brain survives and is indeed favoured in evolution, primarily because it allows complex movement.
B: Keeping [A] in mind is probably smart when studying/contemplating anything related to "brained" animals, humans included.
Yup movement is ontological primary, physics shows it. All objects are primary made from motion.
Reproduction is not an end though, it is a means of survival. The end is survival.
I don't think that it's only his accent. I mean, imagine yourself trying to give a talk with such complexity in less than 20 minutes (which seems like the amount of time they have given him), you would surely hurry speaking. But Idk, it seems like some people who are familiar with his accent haven't found difficulty understanding him, so...
@amjams To each his own. I think even Wolpert would agree that once the simplest brains developed for movement, evolutionary pressures favored other features as well, like abstract thought in humans. It's just all built on a common foundation.
@gaiagale - Perhaps I interpreted your question wrong. I see now that you were simply implicating D.W.'s concept as not including two potent aspects of brain functioning: thinking and feeling.
"beings" vs "doings": In fact, even at apparent rest, the subconscious is constantly panning and "doing" things to keep us alive: breathing, blood circulation, food digestion, etc., etc., etc.
"protect them first": Emotions help us evaluate past actions and assess priorities for future actions.
@gaiagale Ah, I might've rushed that one a bit. These comments don't allow much elaboration. What I meant is that when one tries to achieve some higher understanding of the behavior of any animal with a brain, [A] may be one of the premises one should remember. I was primarily thinking of epistemology and psychology when I wrote my reply (I'm studying philosophy of science these days), but I think it may well apply in any area concerning the behavior of beings who have a brain to speak of.
This is profoundly interesting psychologically and suggests that below the subconscious there is a need go move, the body's basic intelligence? The appeal of sports at all levels, perhaps.
Fantastic talk, thanks!
One implication here is that we know nothing with certainty; knowledge is based on practical probability.
Best channel ever
wow, this video really showed me a new perspective. thanks TED! :D
@Llewellyn124 I know what you mean. But I also know that it isn't that simple either. Most games or positions can only be won with 1 set series of moves. For example sacrifice of the queen may be the start of a series of 12 moves. And only 1 variation of the 12 moves would win... whereas the other 12^30 moves would lead most likely lead to high percentage of losses. Therefore a program to follow the highest percentage of win would avoid winning.
Not just movement... It's the universal consciousness that governs our universe
uhhh
Great video.
@gaiagale what does a child have to do? absorb social rules to abide by them in the future.. eat.. learn how to respond.. learn the constancies of the physical world, and in turn that it can act on it.. it learns properties of materials and the properties of the self.. it's all movement-based. really. it makes beautiful sense.
@hilariofreire roughly the same classical musicians would think about deathmetal, acid trance or dubstep? Loads of noise, but once you understand the patterns and purpose of the noise it can become beautiful.
@2bsirius Because the amount of permutations per move for Chess is far less than Go. Most computers, such as Deep Blue, will compute many moves in advance or to the end of the game to determine the 'best' move. There are too many possibilities for in each move in Go to do this.
See, Ted talks are still awesome.
@gaiagale "The real reason for brains" is more than just "control movement"
I would suggest you think a little about how much movement is involved in everything we do. Even the highest reaches of spiritual or philosophical thought, if it influences the way we respond to the world in any manner, involves modifying our movements. I really cant think of any use of the brain that wouldn't alter our movement to some, although maybe small, degree.
They do have a nervous system though, such movement wouldn't really work without some inter-connectivity, It might work using other means of synchronization, but as said, jellyfish do have a nervous system, they are actually quite aware of their sorroundings with some species going as far as having having rudimentary eyes
He sounds like Stewie
haha true
LMAAO at the Professor's tenure analogy, hilarious :D
Excellent! Enjoyed it very much.
in response to his last point about vision, how then would he explain bats? they lack vision though are very capable-in fact extremely precise-of movement.
I love these ted talks.
@gaiagale I hadn't heard of it before, but I just finished watching it. Thanks a lot for the heads up, it was very enjoyable, in much the same way as I enjoyed 'Waking Life'. At this point my thoughts are too chaotic and disorganized for me to partake in any serious discussion of it. I'll watch it again in a couple of weeks, and then I might have some thoughts for you.
He speaks like his theory about the brain is 100% true meanwhile neurosciences is just at the beginning of the exploration of the brain and we might not really know what are the real functions and purpose of the brain. Indeed, brain could have been made to think and meditate about the creation and therefor remember the creator.
@2bsirius Chess is a simpler game to predict than GO!. There are, at most, 100 or so possible moves in chess at any one time. Very large numbers of those moves can be ignored because of immediate consequence, so most of the time, chess is reduced to a few dozen moves or less per turn.
GO! on the other hand doesn't lend itself to such easy determination. It has as many moves, but none are easily ignored. The consequences of moves aren't as clear cut as in chess.
@lightandbeautiful Wow, you're insane. I thought you were from this post, but going to your channel confirmed it.
Fantastic talk, can't wait to see where this all leads ^.^
This was interesting for the first 5 minutes
go to the last 5!
@3:00 - Regarding the dexterity of optimizing robotic movement, things are much more advanced than depicted at this point in Wolpert's talk. Please see the following video to learn more: /watch?v=ag-txw4KUgo
I'm addicted to Ted
@ennot you got it all wrong, the thing about movement is that it demands PREDICTION / ANALYTICAL skills, which certainly Bill Gates and other thinkers have plenty of.
This guy is really nice. He could tell me I have cancer and I'd be like, "thanks!"
@mattmoore111 this is a hypothesis about the relationship between movement and the human brain.
It has nothing to do with what you asked.
It's like asking how germ theory explains planetary motion. It doesn't, it's unrelated.
V fab thank you. Good luck tho in finding a future or world outside the mind.
Very interesting,
@Waranoa Note that Mr. Wolpert does not mention consciousness except in passing and that he is a materialist. Science has killed materialism.
“all matter exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ Planck
"We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart."-Blaise Pascal (1723-1662)
@2bsirius the previous dude is right. but computers still could outpay even the best players if they had enough computing power which would be about (power of a modern multi-tower server)^6
After the dots at minute 16:26 I really want to dance :D
4:50 the robots are probably thinking "GO TO THE RECYCLE BIN YOU FLESH BORN SHOW OFF!"
what a smart dude.
@panniize no problem, mate. I'm from Brazil btw, howdy
I wonder what he thinks about parkour and free running
Thank you for the
Wise words my brotha from anotha motha
@@ch3rxyokay chump
I love this guy. :)
Man, I was going the zombie snacks option... Boy, was I wrong!
Our brain are always "on the go" mode... cool.
10:49 Combined together into one (tomato?) sauce
SignifyingSomething lolol
@seemysig well i cant say for tears and earwax, nor heat. but the other area all control by muscles, just like breathing.
A TED speech a day makes Ashwin a Bright Boy :).
17:07 you laugh you lose
What is the psychological phenomenon of this subtraction of self-generated force (either in pain or tickling) called?
adaptive model based filtering or what an adaptive Kalman filter does.
@MGordge probably tenured professors :3
9:49 guy on the right= me in class :p
So does the animal with the largest relative brain size have the most complex movements and uses?